Leicester City Council Bill
	 — 
	Liverpool City Council Bill
	 — 
	Maidstone Borough Council Bill Read a Second time, and committed.

Keith Simpson: May I begin by sending on behalf of the official Opposition our deep condolences to the families and friends of the two British soldiers who were sadly killed in Iraq, the second one being the 100th British soldier killed there? We send our best wishes to the soldiers who were injured.
	I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of the statement, and for informing the House about the Government White Paper. Having read and heard the statement, however, many of us regard it as a non-event, to say the least. It is a curious time and place to make a statement but, nevertheless, it raises a number of interesting questions, not least because more than two thirds of the statement was retrospective and did not look at prospects for the EU in 2006.
	The coming year may not be as dramatic as the last for the European Union, but we should be in no doubt of its importance for the EU's future. It will be the time for the EU to reflect on the constitution's rejection and the long-term strategic issues that it faces on competitiveness, security and its own future as an institution in the 21st century. The Minister stated the Government's position with his usual confidence, but does he remember that when the Foreign Secretary introduced a similar statement last year, he went into detail about the Government's position on the EU budget? He told the House that the Government were working
	"to ensure that future EU budgets are limited to 1 per cent. of Europe's economic output and that that money is spent where it most adds value."—[Official Report, 3 February 2005; Vol. 430, c. 994.]
	However, the Government ended up agreeing a rise in the EU budget to 1.045 per cent., which is an increase of £25 billion, but they obtained no guarantee of further common agricultural policy reform. The Foreign Secretary assured the House that Britain's rebate "remains fully justified" and reminded hon. Members that Britain had a veto. We all know what happened next—the rebate was cut by £7 billion for the budget period. Does the Minister understand that hon. Members are suspicious whether what the Government say will match what the Government actually achieve?
	The White Paper rightly underlines the need for economic reform. Does the Minister agree that the services directive is essential in achieving a more competitive Europe? The European Parliament will vote on the directive in a fortnight. Does the Minister agree that the main aim for member states is to reach a political agreement in the Council by the March economic summit? Does he agree that there has already been extensive consultation with social partners? It would be unacceptable if further consultation became an excuse for yet more delay. Does he agree that the European Parliament's internal market and consumer protection committee has produced a balanced text to ensure the freedom to provide services, and that it should be our common goal to maintain it, particularly with regard to article 16?
	Turning to trade, many hon. Members on both sides of the House were disturbed to hear Commissioner Mandelson say two or three weeks ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not spoken to him recently—it appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been ignoring him—which is causing much upset on the Government Benches. I understand that the Minister is a protégé of both Commissioner Mandelson and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which means that he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Nevertheless, will he use his good offices to get them talking? It is good to talk, but on such a crucial issue, it is vital.
	Does the Minister agree that Britain's opt-out from the working time directive is vital to our competitiveness in a globalised marketplace? Will the Government ensure that our opt-out is maintained in its entirety and that it will not be negotiated away in any form?
	Paragraph 143 of the White Paper rightly emphasises the importance of energy security. Does the Minister agree that recent events in Ukraine and Georgia prove the need for secure and diverse supplies? Will the Minister outline in more concrete terms how the Government plan to achieve that?
	All hon. Members agree that Europe's greatest achievement over the past two decades has been the spread of democracy throughout the continent. In March, a presidential election will be held in Europe's last remaining authoritarian state, Belarus. Why does the White Paper not mention that election? What steps will the Government and our European partners take to ensure that that election is free and fair?
	The middle east is a vital area for our security and for the cause of peace in the world, so Hamas's election victory must be a matter of the deepest concern. Will the Minister tell the House the criteria by which the continued funding of the Palestinian Authority by the EU will be judged? Is it not essential that Europe and America hold a united position in dealing with Hamas? Does he agree that if a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority remains wedded to terror, it should not receive EU funding?
	One of the most important questions for the European Union concerns how it can modernise itself to meet the demands of the 21st century. The constitution's defeat in last year's referendums proves that the old model of integration is failing Europe and alienating its people. Does the Minister agree that a British vision of an open, flexible Europe has never been more relevant? Is not that the issue for British leadership? Will the Minister explain why no British Minister attended last week's important sound of Europe conference in Salzburg? How do the Government expect to influence the debate, if they do not participate?
	We all agree that the EU needs to be more open and accountable. To that end, what steps are the Government taking to achieve open voting in the Council and a stronger say—the so-called yellow-card procedure—on subsidiarity for national Parliaments? Some member states and EU commissioners still insist that the EU constitution will soon be ripe for revival. This month, the Foreign Secretary told us that
	"it is difficult to argue that the constitution is not dead."—[Official Report, 10 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 147.]
	The dead parrot syndrome. Should not a British Government, leading in Europe, have a clearer view than "perhaps yes" or "perhaps no"?
	Britain's last presidency was marked by the contrast between the hype in the last paper presented to Parliament, and a failure to deliver fully in many areas. Over the next year, we will support the Government where they take practical steps to reform the EU to meet its long-term challenges. But it is now time for the Government to outline a British vision of Europe that can meet those challenges, rather than merely parroting what the EU requires.

Mark Pritchard: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the trade in endangered animals on the internet; and for connected purposes.
	The trade of endangered animals on the internet is a growing and serious problem. Independent commentators estimate that the trade is worth up to £25 billion globally and up to £3 billion involving UK websites and consumers. Those large figures include both live and dead animals and animal products. Today, I would like to disaggregate those figures and focus on the millions of pounds being spent in the sale of live endangered animals on the internet, driving some of those species near to extinction.
	It may come as a shock to some hon. Members to discover that this morning, in my office at the House of Commons, I logged on to the internet and could have purchased a leopard, a zebra, sea turtles, chimpanzees, an American bald eagle, an alligator, a dromedary, a mountain lion and a Lear's macaw. Sadly, the list goes on and on. I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) about the elephant in the room at the Foreign Office. That escaped my research, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will pass on the details to me.
	In August 2005, the International Fund for Animal Welfare found that 9,000 endangered live animals were offered for sale online in one week. That search was limited to five categories of animal, but I am sure that the House will be interested to know that animals of all categories are sold every minute of every day, year after year. That same research found that 146 primates were available for sale in the UK. All of the sales were illegal: all the animals were endangered, and all were being traded through UK-registered websites. We do not know where the animals involved in such sales come from, how they are transported, or the conditions in which they are kept.
	The Government rightly recognise the need to protect the environment, but what about the natural environment? Given the obvious scale of the problem, is not it incumbent on the Government, industry and us all to do far more to tackle this serious problem? The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), is attending the debate, and I know that he is a good-natured man who takes animal welfare very seriously. I hope that he will consider the suggestions that I have to make, especially given that the Animal Welfare Bill is currently before the House.
	What could the Government do? First, I encourage them to work in collaboration with internet service providers and auction houses to launch a public awareness campaign on this matter. That campaign should be targeted at both consumers and traders and should inform them about what is lawful and what is not. Secondly, I encourage the Government to establish a hotline—for telephones and/or emails—so that illegal activity can be reported to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That information should then be shared with wildlife crime officers and the police.
	Thirdly, a legal help desk should be set up so that people who are not sure about the law can contact someone to obtain clarification. Very often, the terms and conditions of websites involved in this trade are hidden somewhere in the back of beyond in the ISP's terms and conditions. We need to expose what is lawful and what is not. Finally, as I said earlier, the Government should liaise more closely with crime enforcement agencies.
	Earlier, I saw the Home Secretary appear briefly in the Chamber before dashing out. I wish that he had stayed, because I know that the Government are keen on targets. I hope that the Minister will speak gentle words of encouragement in the right hon. Gentleman's ear about the adoption of a new Home Office target to ensure that police forces around the country bring successful prosecutions of those involved in this illegal trade, leading to their conviction. The House will be astounded to hear that only two successful prosecutions were brought last year for trade involving endangered animals. In both cases, the animals were dead and stuffed, but we know that there is a trade in live animals. With the greatest respect, I believe that the fact that there has not been a single prosecution in respect of the trade in live animals is an indictment of the Government.
	The Government and the Minister could take the lead in this matter, both in this country and in Europe. Under the convention on international trade in endangered species, they could use our EU block vote to lead the way internationally. There is a CITES conference in June next year: I hope that the Minister will go there and declare that the UK is leading the way on animal welfare and that it has forged agreement in Europe about a new way forward on the matter.
	Possibly the best and most immediate way to deal with the illegal trade in endangered animals is to establish a code of conduct for all ISPs and those involved in the internet market place to ensure that they do not facilitate the sale of endangered animals, directly or indirectly, through their products and services. As a Conservative, I hope that that could be achieved through a voluntary code, not a statutory one. We will have to wait and see whether the ISPs are prepared to go along with that.
	What can ISPs do? We know that web content can be curbed because we have seen the excellent work of the Internet Watch Foundation, which works to prevent access to child pornography. ISPs should work in partnership, perhaps with the Government, to extend their remit to involve animal watch internet work. If they are not prepared, or are unable, to do that, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs needs to work with them to set up a dedicated animal watch foundation to ensure that that evil trade stops.
	It is no longer good enough for ISPs or the Government to argue that such a task is too great, too complex or the amount of data too overwhelming. We know that when ISPs have a will, they can find a way. For example, they can monitor, block and stop links from sites that promote political thought or messages. We have seen that with Google in China in the past week. If Google and other ISPs can regulate free speech in China, the least they can do is regulate the sale of endangered animals on the internet in the UK.
	ISPs should also co-operate with Government and each other in agreeing a code of conduct. They should make it easier to report illegal activity, because current abuse processes are not user friendly, and provide better training for staff. ISPs should not see this Bill as a threat to their business, but as an opportunity to differentiate their products so that discerning and promiscuous—in the marketing sense—consumers can say, "I do not want to give my money to this ISP if it is not animal welfare friendly." Consumers should make the choice. They should email their ISP and threaten to take their business elsewhere unless this issue is taken seriously. I hope that the Government will take the lead on that. ISPs could gain a competitive advantage by taking this matter seriously.
	If ISPs do not take action, consumers will, and the courts might. There is a case before the courts at present, but I shall not go into detail. However, we know that the courts may take action if the Government do not. This is a serious and growing problem and I hope that the Government will take it more seriously. I know that the Minister is serious about animal welfare—this is his opportunity to prove that to the country and to put an end to this abhorrent trade.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mark Pritchard, Mr. Roger Gale, Jeremy Wright, David Howarth, Mr. Eric Martlew, Hugh Robertson, Mr. David Drew, Michael Fabricant, Ms Celia Barlow, Mr. John Randall, David T. C. Davies and Mr. Edward Vaizey.

Gerald Howarth: When Iqbal Sacranie said on Radio 4, out of a deeply held conviction, that it was his view that homosexuality was harmful, was he being reckless?

Paul Goggins: He was giving his own honest view, based on his religious belief. He would certainly not have committed an offence in the context in which he said it and the manner in which he said it, because his intention—[Interruption.] Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members want to intervene, perhaps they will at least listen to my response. In the context in which Iqbal Sacranie made the remark, he certainly did not intend to stir up religious hatred. However, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) points to something which I know is of concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House and elsewhere—that is, the way in which these matters are reported and investigated. One extremely important outcome of the Bill once it is enacted will be the drafting of the guidance for the police in their investigation of the offence, and so on.

Edward Leigh: One of the reasons why Iqbal Sacranie is so much in favour of the Bill is, no doubt, the letter that the Home Secretary sent to mosques at the time of the general election. It said that he merely wanted to give Muslims the protection enjoyed by Jews and Sikhs. I understand that right-thinking Muslims are concerned, but that is a complete misreading of existing legislation. The fact is that Jews and Sikhs are protected only by racial laws: there is no protection for the religions of Judaism and Sikhism.

Alistair Carmichael: I shall attempt to emulate the brevity of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), but I am afraid that I would seek to follow little else in his speech. He still seems suck in the same problem as the one that the Government have been stuck with throughout the proceedings on the Bill—trying to create some sort of equivalence between the treatment of people according to their race with that according to their religion. Those are very different aspects and they must be treated very differently.
	I wish to associate myself with the remarks about the Minister made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The debates have often been difficult and emotive, as we have heard today, and I want to place on the record my appreciation of the Minister for the fact that he has been unfailingly courteous to those who have opposed him throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
	The Liberal Democrats invite the House not to agree with the Government's motions to disagree with the other place. The arguments about the Bill in its broadest sense have been well rehearsed, and I do not intend to repeat them. However, by saying that there will not be a huge number of prosecutions under the legislation, the Minister does not bring any great comfort to the House. I seem to recall that the same arguments were advanced with regard to demonstrations in Parliament square, but in excess of 28 people have been arrested on allegations of breaching that legislation merely a few months after it came into force. Such reassurance does not address our concern that there will be a fundamental chilling of the freedom of expression.
	In our view, the Bill is very much improved by the amendments that have been made in the other place, and we very much regret that the Government again seek to change it in two ways. First, they want to expand the state of mind involved from merely making the crime one of intent by including recklessness. That is our most fundamental objection, and I will expand on that later. Secondly, the expansion to include conduct that is covered by abusive or insulting words or behaviour is also exceptionally worrying and very wrong. In fact, we find the combination of both those elements fundamentally obnoxious. If the crime were merely one of intent, I could probably live with the extension to include abusive and insulting behaviour.

Philip Hammond: This debate was always at risk of being an anti-climax after events earlier in the evening, but it is none the less about a big issue, which is important for all of us—those of us already drawing a pension, those of us approaching retirement and even those of us at the beginning of our working life.
	We are faced with some truly long-term decisions, which our adversarial party political system with its four or five-year cycle may not be ideally designed to address. We caught a little of that in the Secretary of State's tone of voice. He tells us that he wants to build consensus, and the Opposition have certainly come to the debate with that intention. The British people will expect us to lift the debate out of the party political arena and genuinely attempt to build a consensus that gives them the security to plan for the long term, knowing that the settlement we eventually reach will not be unravelled by a spin of the wheel of political fortune.
	This is the first opportunity that we have had to discuss pensions since the publication of the Turner report and at this stage an Adjournment debate is a good forum in which to conduct our discussions. Such is the magnitude of the issue, however, that we shall need further debates, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State acknowledged that that would be possible. I want to consider some of the preliminary issues that we feel need to be addressed to allow us to hold a serious and open debate in the attempt to reach consensus about the long-term future of our pension system. My main focus will be Turner.
	Turner said that there is no immediate crisis. Although there may be no immediate crisis in relation to the state pension or the public sector's ever-mounting liability in respect of its pensions, many people coming up to retirement, who are stakeholders in private pension schemes, are experiencing something that feels remarkably like a crisis. I want to deal with that issue, as I am sure that many Members will want to raise it.
	There are several reasons for the real, current crisis in the private pension sector—significantly lower investment returns and rising life expectancy, which is good news for everybody except actuaries. Nobody, not even in our most rabid moments, could hold the Government responsible for those issues. There are other things for which the Government must take responsibility, such as the Chancellor's £5 billion-a-year raid on pension funds, which has wiped about £125 million off the value of pension funds.
	I hope that the Minister will refer to one issue in particular that is outside the scope of the big, long-term debate, although the Government could address it in the shorter term. It is the extent to which the regulatory regime under the Pensions Act 2004, which is supposed to encourage and protect private pensions, is encouraging a retreat from higher risk, higher return assets in favour of liability-driven investment in gilts, with a series of self-reinforcing and rather negative outcomes that we are seeing at the moment. That has driven up demand for long-dated gilts, thus driving down yields. Pension fund liabilities are calculated by reference to the yield on the long-dated gilt, which in turn has increased the deficits of those pensions and fuelled the next round of liability-driven gilt buying. Meanwhile, the funds have missed out on a recovery in the equity markets and perhaps an opportunity to repair the damage that previous stock market downturns have done to their balance sheets.
	I certainly subscribe to the view that politicians, especially Opposition politicians, should not lecture the Debt Management Office on how it manages the public sector debt, so I shall not offer the Minister any recommendation about how the Government should fund their debt, and I urge my colleagues to follow that lead. However, the Minister could look at the demand side of the problem. He could consider the regulatory environment that is driving the flight from risk to gilts. He could also consider the extent to which the regulatory regime and the risk-based pension protection fund levy, which is now anticipated, are reinforcing patterns of investment behaviour that are making it more and more difficult for companies to plug the holes in their pension funds. I should be grateful if the Minister would say something about that very immediate problem tonight.
	While the Minister is responding, he might just take a quick look at the financial assistance scheme, which was set up with a great fanfare nearly two years ago to provide a solution for the estimated 85,000 people who have been left high and dry by the collapse of pension funds. The financial assistance scheme has so far paid out to just 15 people, and that figure represents an advance. The latest published Government figure shows that 13 people have benefited, but we are grateful to the Minister for yesterday updating that figure to 15 people. If we could deal with those short-term, immediate issues, that would be great.
	Let us go back to the long-term reform agenda. The Turner report represents a serious analysis of the twin challenges that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has spelled out, namely, of dealing with the demographic changes in Britain's population while maintaining Britain's world competitiveness, which is essential to the prosperity of all of us. Pensioners, those in work and those unable to work all depend on that international competitiveness for our future prosperity.
	Whether or not the Opposition or, indeed, any other hon. Member adopts Lord Turner's recommendations in the end, we should treat his report with respect and use it as the basis of an attempt to build the great consensus that the Secretary of State spoke about—a consensus between political parties in the House, between generations in the country, between the sexes and between different groups in our society. The Opposition are formulating our response to Turner's proposals on the basis of the principles of fairness, sustainability, security and affordability. The settlement must be fair by embracing all types of pension—state, public and private sector—and it must recognise the differences in people's life expectancy and the need for flexibility to accommodate them. It must address the discrimination against women that is built into the present state system.
	On security, people must be given a clear understanding of what the state will and will not do. That security must be based on a consensus that gives people the confidence to plan ahead and make their own arrangements, with an understanding that the settlement that is reached will endure for many years. On sustainability, the settlement must be durable in the long term. It must provide a solution for today's pensioners, as well as people in work and those who are not yet of working age. Of course, the settlement must be affordable, both now and in the future, against an objective baseline of the likely future cost of the present system, if it remains unaltered.
	As we analyse and consult on the Turner proposals, which the Government are also doing, the big questions are becoming clear. Is the trade-off of a higher state pension age for higher state pensions the right one? Is it affordable and can it be made sufficiently flexible to be fair to those whose life expectancy will be different from the rising average? What degree of compulsion should be employed when encouraging people to save for a second pension? Should employers be required to contribute and, if so, how much? Should there be special arrangements—either subsidies or exemptions—for small and medium-sized enterprises? How should such a second savings scheme be managed and how will it impact on the existing pensions industry? As the Secretary of State said, the Government are actively pursuing answers to those questions and a lively debate has already begun. Is the balance between public and private provision that Turner proposes the right one for Britain in the 21st century?
	The process is not competitive because we are not trying to get better answers than the Secretary of State. I genuinely hope that by separately pursuing the answers to those questions, we will find not that we get precisely the same answers—that would be too much to expect—but that our answers are sufficiently close to make it possible to build a genuine consensus across the political divide. If we are to have a genuine debate and a real consensus is to be formed, the Government must come to the debate with an open mind. They must be ready to engage in some give and take, because without that we cannot build a consensus.
	The political reality is that if all bar one member of the population reaches a consensus and the one is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we will not have a way forward. It was thus disappointing to those of us who want a consensus that the Chancellor tried to shut down the debate before it got started. He positioned himself from the outset as the road block to pension reform. If we are to have a proper debate, we need transparency, flexibility and impartiality. Nothing must be ruled out and nothing must be off limits in advance of the debate. I have to say that the Government's track record on that is not good, although that is no reflection on the Secretary of State or the Minister for Pensions Reform, because the culprits in this case are the Secretary of State's predecessor but one and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
	Although private sector pension stakeholders are facing tough choices and often negotiating against the constraint of the viability of their employers in the face of burgeoning pension deficits, public sector unions face no such constraints. Whether funded or unfunded, any gap in public sector pension provision must be met by the taxpayer. The Secretary of State's party fatally undermined any claim it could make to be addressing the matter impartially when it caved in to the public sector unions on retirement at 60 before the general election, and caved in again in October last year. If we are to have a serious debate and face up to the tough decisions that must be made, the burden of adjustment must be shared equitably. There can be no exclusions or favours for specific groups. We must all be in this together.

David Laws: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are major issues involved and that remuneration needs to be looked at as a passage. Often, however, the better pension benefits in the public sector do not look as though they are simply compensating for lower pay, although that seems to be what most economic evidence suggests today. Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there should be negotiation on these matters.
	Whenever I have discussed these issues with people in my constituency who work in the public sector, I have found that they are far more grown up than we assume. They understand that there are no blank cheques to be signed in this regard. Many of them, including people in the local government scheme, have suggested that they should be paying higher employee contributions. They ask why employee contributions have not risen over time, even though people are living longer. One of the mistakes that we make in politics is to treat people as though they are children who cannot understand these basic issues, but most people understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and that Governments of all parties have to grapple with these difficult issues.
	Another issue that needs to be looked at if we are to afford a better basic state pension architecture is the state pension age. The Government appear to have made a significant change in their policy in this area; I think I heard the Secretary of State say today that he thought an increase in the state pension age was inevitable. That is quite a striking change in Government policy from that of the Secretary of State's predecessor but one, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—

Stephen Timms: I certainly do not agree that we should return to the arrangement whereby large numbers of single pensioners were living on £69 a week. Were we to go back, that would be the position. At the moment, every single pensioner is entitled to an income of at least £109.45 per week, and the Turner report proposes that auto-enrolling people into the national pension savings scheme will enable them to build up savings and a pension, which, over time, would reduce the extent of means-testing. We certainly must not, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was calling for, go back to the time when large numbers of people were on extremely low incomes. I, too, am delighted to be debating these matters with him again. His earlier contribution took me back to 1999.
	We have introduced the state second pension, greatly boosting the savings of those on low incomes and carers. We have also introduced stakeholder pensions, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of which there are 2.5 million, making an important contribution and enabling people who could not save economically in the past to do so.
	We now have a foundation that opens up the chance of an enduring pensions settlement for the UK. I hope that the optimism expressed across the Chamber today will be fulfilled over the next few weeks as we move towards proposals for reform and a consensus about what we should do.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) was right to draw attention to Lord Turner's statement that there was no immediate crisis for pensioner incomes. I think he was trying to make out that there was a crisis, but I believe that Lord Turner was right.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman's commitment to a constructive contribution on his party's behalf. He asked a question about something that he has mentioned to me a couple of times, about which I know he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He wanted to know whether he and his colleagues could have access to PENSIM2. He will have a response from my right hon. Friend tomorrow. I believe that the position is not entirely straightforward, but my right hon. Friend certainly wants to be helpful.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) expressed some clear views about what was the right way in which to proceed. He was very critical of the Turner proposals. He mentioned a worry to which a number of people have drawn attention, about the danger of levelling down. That is an important point, although given that many employers currently make significant contributions to defined-benefit and defined-contribution pension schemes, I do not see why, if we made 3 per cent. the minimum, employers would necessarily think it appropriate to reduce their contributions.

Bullying in Schools

CORRECTION

Official Report, 30 January 2006: in column 10 after "Mr Neil Turner (Wigan) (Lab):" delete "Reading" and insert "Wigan".
	Official Report, 30 January 2006: in column 132, after "No. 227, in page104, line 34 after 'Ministers' insert 'the First Minister of the Counsel General'," insert
	"No. 228, in page 104, line 35, at end insert—
	'Laying of reports and statements
	9A (1) This paragraph applies where—
	(a) a function to make or receive a report or statement (including a function conferred or imposed by or by virtue of an Act passed after this Act) is transferred to, or made exercisable by, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General by an Order in Council under section 58, and
	(b) immediately before the coming into force of the provisions of the Order in Council relating to the function, and enactment made provision ("provision for Parliamentary laying") for a report or statement made or received in the exercise of the function to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament by the person making or receiving it.
	(2) The provision for Parliamentary laying applies to the exercise of the function by the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister or the Counsel General as if it required the report or statement to be laid before the Assembly instead of before Parliament or either House of Parliament.
	(3) In this paragraph references to a report or statement include any other document (except one containing subordinate legislation).'.